report of the nicole workshop report spring lisbon.pdf · summary report implementation of...

SUMMARY REPORT

Implementation of Sustainability in Management of Contaminated Land

–

in particular using emerging 'green' technologies

12-14 June, 2013

Lisbon, Portugal

Supported by:

Greenland

School of Economics and Management Lisbon (ISEG)

Report compiled by the Organizing Committee

Acknowledgements

NICOLE gratefully acknowledges:

The speakers for their contributions to the meeting

The School for Economics and Management (ISEG), for hosting the venue in Lisbon, notably Prof. João Correia Duque PhD, president, Idalina Saldinha PhD and all those supporting them in making everyone feel very welcome

Paula Meireles – Ministry for Agriculture, Sea, Environment and Spatial Planning (MAMAOT)/Office of Planning and Policy (GGP), Portugal, for delivering the Keynote address

Report was authored by Paul Bardos (Greenland Project and r3 environmental technology ltd) and

Sarah Jones (r3 environmental technology ltd) and Artur de Groof (Grontmij). The support of the

Greenland Project is gratefully acknowledged (www.greenland-project.eu).

The members of the Organising Committee:

o Arthurt de Groof – Grontmij, The Netherlands (Chair)

o Hans-Peter Koschitzky – University of Stuttgart, Germany (Vice-chair)

o Paul Bardos – R3 Environmental, United Kingdom

o Ettore Ferrari – ENI, Italy

o Hans Groot – Deltares, The Netherlands

o Philippe Menoud – DuPont, Switzerland

o Allessandro Nardella – ENI, Italy

o Elise Noel – Shell, France

o Matthew Pearce – WorleyParsons, United Kingdom

o Alan Thomas – ERM, United Kingdom

o Peter Wouters – ENVIRON, Spain

NICOLE is a network for the stimulation, dissemination and exchange of knowledge about all

aspects of industrially contaminated land. Its 100 members of 20 European countries come from

industrial companies and trade organizations (problem holders), service providers/ technology

developers, universities and independent research organizations (problem solvers) and

governmental organizations (policy makers).

The network started in February 1996 as a concerted action under the 4th Framework

Programme of the European Community. Since February 1999 NICOLE has been self-supporting

and is financed by the fees of its members.

More about NICOLE on www.nicole.org

http://www.greenland-project.eu/

http://www.nicole.org/

Contents

1. Introduction 3

1.1 General 3

1.2 Workshop contents 4

2. Session 2: Development of sustainability frameworks - 1 5

3. Session 3: Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation

projects -1 8

4. Session 4: Sustainable remediation using renewable energy 19

5. Session 5: Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation

projects - 2 433

6. Session 6: Development of sustainability frameworks - 2 37

7. Session 7: Sustainable remediation using phyto- techniques 42

8. Concluding Remarks 46

Appendix

Program NICOLE Technical Meeting

1. Introduction

1.1 General

NICOLE has described a sustainable remediation project as one that represents the best solution when

considering environmental, social as well as economic factors – as agreed by the stakeholders. This debate

has been the subject of several NICOLE meetings and special sessions, for example:

Management of Contaminated Land towards a Sustainable Future: Opportunities, Challenges and

Barriers for the Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land in Europe, Barcelona, Spain, 12 – 14

March 2003

Sustainable Remediation, London, UK, 3 March 2008 (with SAGTA)

Sustainable remediation – A solution to an unsustainable past? Leuven, Belgium, 4‐5 June 2009.

These workshops were significant contributions to the development of an international discussion of

sustainable remediation. They also supported the development of NICOLE’s Road Map for Sustainable

Remediation published in 2011, its subsequent supporting guidance and the 2013 joint statement with the

COMMON FORUM on Risk-Informed and Sustainable Remediation. All of these resources and the workshop

reports are available as downloads free of charge from www.nicole.org. Some additional background is given

in Chapter 2.

The workshop in Lisbon represents a decisive shift towards reporting practical implementation of sustainable

remediation projects and policies. Related to, and part of, the sustainable remediation topic are the concepts

of Green Remediation which has been developed largely by the US EPA, and a discussion of green

technologies meaning technologies which are considered to have, as intrinsic property, a relatively low

environmental impact, for example being less intensive in their use of resources and more protective of soil

functionality. Sustainable remediation, green remediation and green technologies are inter-related but they

are not interchangeable terms.

The Lisbon Workshop 2013 gathered examples and experiences on how contaminated sites can be

remediated eco‐efficiently, leaving a smaller environmental footprint, and how their reuse can contribute to a

more sustainable development. This encompassed both approaches to deployment and decision‐making, and

technologies.

The overarching aims of the workshop were to facilitate adoption of more sustainable strategies and

techniques, and to understand whether there are barriers to this, and if so, how they could be overcome.

The workshop began with a keynote paper to provide a common vocabulary for the themes and ideas being

presented, and was then organised in several sessions: Development of sustainability frameworks;

Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation projects; Sustainable remediation using renewable

energy; and Sustainable remediation using phyto‐techniques. Table 1 lists the presentations in each session,

and these are summarised in Chapter 3. Overall meeting conclusions are summarised in Chapter 4.

1.2 Workshop contents

Development of

sustainability

frameworks

The Common Forum‐NICOLE joint position statement on sustainable remediation; Dominique Darmendrail (France Common Forum Secretary) and Lucy Wiltshire (Honeywell – United Kingdom & NICOLE member) -2.1*

Development of practical guidance to promote sustainability considerations in land contamination management in the UK; Brian Bone (SuRF‐UK Steering Group – United Kingdom) – 2.2

Flanders implements green and sustainable remediation by a threefold approach; Griet van Gestel (OVAM – Flanders, Belgium) 2.3

Integrating sustainable development principles into Shell’s global soil and groundwater management program; Jonathan Smith (Shell Global Solutions – Netherlands/United Kingdom)

Use of SURF‐UK indicators to evaluate remediation alternatives in Northern Ireland; James Day and David Ellis (CH2M – Germany / DuPont – United States of America)

Optimizing remediation sustainability using a two‐step stochastic method; Gary Wealthall (Geosyntec Consultants – Canada)

Syndial approach to sustainable remediation ‐ an Italian case study; Emanuela Gallo, Giorgio Bianchi and Luciano Zaninetta (Syndial – Italy)

Implementing

sustainability

approaches in

remediation

projects

Field development of 'in situ reactive zone' (IRZ) for the sustainable treatment of Chromite ore processing residues (Copr) Heap; Thomas Wohlhuter (Arcadis – France) - 3.1

Life cycle assessment of soils and groundwater remediation with zero valent iron nanoparticles: Results from a pilot study in Barreiro, Portugal; ‐ by Helena Gomes and Celeste Jorge (CENSE (Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research) – Portugal) - 3.2

Mulch biowalls as low cost sustainable remediation for contaminated soils and groundwater; Kevin Morris (ERM – United States of America)

Optimizing the remediation solution for a complex solvent plume, following the NICOLE road map; Tracy Braithwaite (AWE – United Kingdom) and Matthew Pearce (WorleyParsons – United Kingdom)

Sustainability assessment of the redevelopment of Hexion with CEEQUAL; Petra Brinkhoff (NCC Construction – Sweden)

Sustainability assessment of remedial options for a former oil terminal site; Richard Bewley and Emily Ghedia (URS Infrastructure & Environment – United Kingdom) -

Sustainable

remediation using

renewable energy

Green soil remediation projects at the Bilthoven and Amersfoort sites; Johan van Leeuwen (SBNS – Netherlands) – 4.1

Parys Mountain metal mine, Anglesey, Wales: Sustainability in mine water remediation; Rick Parkman (URS Infrastructure & Environment – United Kingdom) – 4.2

Sustainable

remediation using

phyto‐techniques

Engineered phytoremediation at an industrial site contaminated with aromatic hydrocarbons; Frank Volkering (Tauw – Netherlands / Dow – Netherlands) - 3.16

Overcoming barriers to effective phyto‐management of contaminated land – the GREENLAND project; by Nele Witters (University of Hasselt – Belgium) – 3.17

*codes refer to section where the corresponding presentation summary can be found.

2. Session 2: Development of sustainability frameworks - 1

Session Chair: Peter Wouter – ENVIRON, Spain

Sustainable Remediation

Two key aims of sustainable remediation are:

1. To gain a net benefit (environmental, economic and/or social) from the chosen remediation option and;

2. To obtain a balanced outcome through incorporation of risk based land management, consideration of the

acceptability of the remediation technique’s wider impacts, and the inclusion of stakeholder participation.

Sustainable remediation concepts are broadly based on the achievement of a net benefit overall across a

range of environmental, economic and social concerns that are judged to be representative of sustainability.

However, what “sustainability” encompasses is highly site specific and is dependent on the opinions of a

range of stakeholders with interests in a particular site. As such, sustainability is not objectively quantifiable.

On a site specific basis, however, it is possible to assess sustainability, compare possible remediation options,

and monitor / improve sustainability “performance” as a chosen option is implemented. This emerging shared

understanding worldwide is both significant and beneficial, and has been supported by excellent interaction

and collaboration.

Success Factors

The reason for carrying out remediation is to manage unacceptable risks, caused by soil contamination, for

human health and the environment. Sustainable remediation seeks the optimum way to manage these risks,

typically taking into account environmental as well as economic and social factors. Several initiatives,

including NICOLE and SuRF, emphasise the importance of considering sustainable remediation early in

decision-making when design decisions are being made that set the boundaries for risk management. An

example framework for sustainable remediation decision making is provided by SuRF-UK, as shown in Figure

1 below.

Incorporating sustainability early in decision making can deliver substantial gains in level of sustainability

attained. Figure 2 shows how sustainability gains are dependent on the stage of the project during which

sustainability is introduced.

Other important features of a successful sustainability assessment include:

Simplicity

o Taking a tiered approach (qualitative semi-quantitative quantitative)

o Stopping when there is sufficient information to make an effective decision

Stakeholder involvement

o Inclusiveness

o Transparent reporting

Early stakeholder involvement is key to persuasive approaches to sustainability assessment, as stakeholders

are unlikely to agree to something presented as an output from a “black box” or an assessment whose basis

they fundamentally disagree with.

Figure 1 – SuRF-UK Framework for Sustainable Remediation Decision Making

Figure 2 – Sustainability Gains Relative to Introduction StageGreen Remediation and Green Remediation

Techniques vs. Sustainable Remediation

A related term to sustainable remediation, “green remediation”, refers to a specific concept developed by the

US EPA. It is the attempt to achieve an improvement in the broad environmental performance of remediation

and applies to a regulatory framework where the socio-economic context and risk management objectives

have already been set by previous decision making. The US EPA has developed detailed guidance on

implementation of green remediation and environmental footprinting. The regulator in Flanders, OVAM, is

adopting a similar approach to green remediation for remedy assessment in its BATNEEC tool. However,

OVAM is also looking at sustainable remediation.

“Green” and “sustainable” remediation share some common elements. For example, the US EPA green

remediation considerations have a fairly close match to the SuRF-UK environmental segment. However,

sustainable remediation also considers the social and economic implications and benefits of remediation. It

should be noted that a delineation is made between green remediation and green remediation techniques.

Green remediation techniques typically involve low input and low impact techniques; this is not the same

thing as the US EPA defined term of green remediation. Green remediation techniques can also be referred to

by the EC FP7 Greenland Project term of “gentle remediation options” (GRO).

GRO are risk management techniques for contaminated sites that result in no gross reduction in soil

functionality / soil ecosystem services (or a net gain) as well as risk management. GRO may be suitable for

large areas and soft end uses (i.e. where a functioning soil is required), as soil typically remains biologically

productive. Sustainability interests and stakeholder engagement in these cases can be wide ranging and

complex.

International Development of Sustainable Remediation

Sustainable remediation could now be regarded as a global phenomenon, with initiatives such as SuRF

having contingents worldwide. Numerous projects, standards and networks exist or are being instigated

internationally to help the development of sustainable remediation. In aid of this, there are various instances

of networks working in conjunction with projects, for example, the joint secretariat hosted by CL:AIRE and

specific initiatives such as the International White Paper initiated by SuRF.

Ongoing Debates, NICOLE Support Documents

In terms of the current stance of sustainable remediation, it is clear that remarkable progress has been made,

with open exchanges occurring at an international level. Nonetheless, a number of debates are still on-going.

For example, “how do we deal with subjectivity?” and when/how to apply risk based vs. sustainability based

decision making paradigms. To aid sustainable remediation decision making, NICOLE has published a Road

Map and associated Guidance Documents. The Road Map is intended to provide problem-holders

(owners/operators of contaminated land) and all stakeholders, with a single, structured process to start

implementing best practice in sustainable remediation across a wide range of regulatory and policy

frameworks. Designed as a series of steps to ensure a consistent and collaborative approach to decision-

making, it can support robust and durable decisions, regardless of the project size.

References

NICOLE (2011) Road map for sustainable remediation. www.nicole.org

www.zerobrownfields.eu

www.greenland-project.eu

http://www.greenland-project.eu/

2.1 The Common Forum - NICOLE Joint Position Paper on Sustainable Remediation

Presenters: Dominique Darmendrail (Common Forum on Contaminated Land in Europe, France) and Lucy

Wiltshire (Honeywell, UK)

Presentation Outline

1. Introduction

The Common Forum on Contaminated Land in Europe Mission

2. Why a Joint Position Statement (JPS)?

3. Context of JPS development

4. SR Key Messages

5. Dissemination of ideas

6. Further info

Presentation Summary

The Common Forum on Contaminated Land in Europe began in 1994 and is a network of contaminated land

policy and regulator experts. Its mission is to provide a platform for knowledge exchange and discussion on

policy, research and managerial concepts of contaminated land. It aims to initiate and continue international

projects and offer expertise exchange between the European Commission, Member States and European

Networks such as NICOLE.

A Joint Position Statement has been proposed to define and highlight the shared key concepts of sustainable

remediation (SR) and encourage a broader utilisation of SR across Europe. The key concepts of SR, based on

the work from CLARINET and other international networks to encourage good practice include:

Protection of human health and the environment

Maximise overall benefit of remediation through a transparent decision-making process

Contribution to sustainable development

Efficient use of socioeconomic resources for enhanced land management and remediation

The crucial Stakeholder engagement

Sustainability incorporated as early as possible

Dissemination of ideas will be achieved via national and international networks, utilisation of media

opportunities and targeted publications. Translations in several European Official languages are provided

(English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Dutch).

References

www.commonforum.eu

www.nicole.org

2.2 Development of Practical Guidance to Promote Sustainability Considerations in Land Contamination m

Management in the UK

Presenter: Dr Brian Bone (Bone Environmental Consultant Ltd.) representing the SuRF-UK Steering Group


1. Background

Legislative context for sustainable remediation in the UK

2. The UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK)

Objectives of current work (Phase 3)

3. Best Management Practices (BMP)

Definitions and context

Mapping BMPs to sustainability indicators

Practical examples of how BMPs may be used

4. Tier 1 Briefcase

Project framing and planning

Overview of briefcase

5. Summary and conclusions


The UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support the application of

sustainability principles for remediation in the UK. It is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiative co-

ordinated by CL:AIRE with a Steering Group that incorporates members from regulatory bodies, industry,

consultancy and academia. SuRF-UK initially focussed effort on developing the first formal framework for

assessing the sustainability of remediation strategies in 2010 that was fully supported by UK government and

national regulatory bodies (CL:AIRE 2010). A second phase of work focussed on disseminating the framework

widely through conferences, webinars and a peer-reviewed paper (Bardos et al. 2011) and on refining the

sustainability indicator sets used within the framework through a series of stakeholder workshops (CL:AIRE

2011).

The SuRF-UK framework has received an enthusiastic welcome and is used mainly by larger consultancies

and problem holders. To encourage wider use a third phase of work started at the end of 2012. This phase is

focussing on compiling case studies and providing practical guidance on carrying out relatively simple,

qualitative assessment. This guidance is in two parts.

The first part is the development of Best Management Practices aligned to the SuRF-UK sustainability

indicator categories so that the same sustainability principles underpin all aspects of land contamination

management and can be applied across the full range of activities, including those that would not normally

have a formal sustainability appraisal. An example of how BMPs may be considered is presented; taken

through tendering, planning and carrying out a site investigation. Figure 3, below, shows the SuRF-UK BMP

process.

Figure 3 – SuRF UK BMP Process

The second part is an assessor’s aid to carrying out a qualitative sustainability appraisal. A range of potential

methods are offered for the more complex (semi-)quantitative approaches (e.g. Multi-Criteria Analysis, Cost-

Benefit Analysis), but not for the simpler qualitative appraisals, which SuRF-UK recommend as a starting

point. The assessor’s aid fills this gap in guidance and may be used by the assessor as a refresher, as a

training tool or even to help guide a stakeholder group through the sustainability appraisal process. SuRF-UK

expect this ‘sustainability assessor pack’ for qualitative appraisals to encourage wider use of the SuRF-UK

framework by small to medium-sized environmental consultancies and their clients.

Tier 1 assessment is addressed as the “entry level” sustainability assessment. Tier 1 is broadly qualitative

and based on simple tables of qualitative categories, e.g. “good” or “better”. Tier 1 is seen as lower effort,

however, it still requires that sufficient framing and planning for the assessment has been carried out in

advance. A “briefcase” (shown in Figure 4) is presented as a tool for the execution of Tier 1 sustainable

remediation assessment with the relevant stakeholder group. The “briefcase” provides a step-by-step

framework for assessment, providing checklists and templates to ensure complete activities and full

recording and justification of actions.

Figure 4 – Tier 1 “Briefcase” Assessment Tool

References

Bardos, P., Bone, B., Boyle, R., Ellis, D., Evans, F., Harries, N.D. and Smith, J.W.N. 2011. Applying sustainable

development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF-UK framework. Remediation

Journal 21(2), 77-100.

CL:AIRE 2010. A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation.

Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments, London.

CL:AIRE 2011. Annex 1: the SuRF-UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation. Contaminated Land:

Applications in Real Environments, London.

2.3 Flanders Implements Green and Sustainable Remediation by a Threefold Approach

Presenter: Griet Van Gestel, OVAM


1. Introduction – OVAM

2. Guidelines and tools for assessment of sustainable remediation

Benefits of guidelines

Stakeholder workshop (2011) – focus on global and long-term effects

Development of a new MCA for assessing green remediation

3. Co-financing pilot projects for green and sustainable remediation

Aims and overview

Pilot studies – phytoremediation and combination ATES and groundwater remediation

Third call for pilot studies

4. Setting the example for ex officio soil remediation projects

Soil remediation maximally integrated into site redevelopment

Communication with local communities

Green specifications for contractors


OVAM (Public Waste Agency of Flanders) promotes green sustainable remediation. This is achieved through:

1. Provision of guidelines and tools for green and sustainable remediation assessment

2. Co-financing pilot projects for green and sustainable remediation

3. Setting an example for ex officio soil remediation projects

Guidelines improve sustainable remediation assessment through ensuring objectivity and transparency.

Presently, soil remediation techniques are chosen according to BATNEEC principle, with an emphasis on

removing local risks and reducing residual contamination. To assess green remediation, a new multi-criteria

analysis (MCA) and CO2 calculator was developed. This was adapted to take into account global warming

(introduction of CO2 calculator) and sensible use of energy and materials (criterion on production of non-

recyclable waste). The new MCA was developed based on literature studies and recommendations to change

the present BATNEEC evaluation. Following this, a feasibility study was carried out by Tauw (2012) and a

meeting with stakeholders was held, with a focus on global and long-term effects. Implementation of the new

MCA is intended to be gradual, with steady introduction into good codes of practice. An assessment tool for

sustainable remediation is under way. Further, SURF-UK indicators were evaluated for their potential

adaptation in Flanders. Conclusions drawn from the new MCA development were that communication and

participation can be improved and soil remediation could be integrated with spatial planning.

To further green and sustainable remediation, innovation is needed. To this end, OVAM co-finances pilot

projects to gain more insight and demonstrate and disseminate knowledge. Pilot studies are presented,

including a phytoremediation project in association with Arcadis and University Hasselt. This project involved

the use of poplars to remediate contaminated groundwater. An additional pilot study utilised ATES in

combination with groundwater remediation.

A series of principles sees OVAM setting an example for ex officio soil remediation projects:

Maximal integration of soil remediation with site redevelopment

Emphasis on communication with local communities

“Green” specifications for contractors working on soil remediation projects

3. Session 3 – Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation projects – 1

Session Chair: Oliver Phipps – ERM, United Kingdom

3.1 Field Development of In Situ Reactive Zone (IRZ) for the Sustainable Treatment of

Chromite Ore Processing Residues (COPR) Heap

Presenters: Thomas Wohlhunter (Arcardis); Co-Authors: Thierry Gisbert, Ludovic Ferriere & Jean-Louis Mauss


1. Introduction

Implementation of Sustainability in Management of Contaminated Land

The PCUK area and the COPR heap

2. Initial Site Conditions and First Works

3. In-situ Reactive Zone technique

4. How to convince stakeholders: lab to field

5. IRZ technique as a sustainable solution


Anaerobic IRZ has been selected as the relevant remedial technique for a former Chromium Ore Processing

Residues (COPR) landfill, located in the northern part of France. This former landfill site has been used since

the beginning of the 20th century by several industrial companies. The ore residues, containing chromium VI

(average 30g/kg), have been stored as long as the activity occurred and form what is now called the “Grand

Terril”. Until 2011 and after several phases of remediation, between 15 and 20 m3 of leachate were collected

daily from the base of the heap. This alkaline leachate, which contains elevated loads of Cr6+ (200-1200

mg/l), a toxic compound, was pumped in order to maintain confinement of the chromium plume within the

site area and processed in an external treatment plant (2 to 5 trucks per week).

It has been estimated than the time required to reach the target groundwater concentration by pumping and

treating the effluent was one to three hundred years; this treatment was not a sustainable solution. This

expensive and carbon dioxide emitting treatment was stopped when landfill remediation work started

(summer 2011). It was replaced by a more sustainable treatment which uses waste from the sugar

production industry (molasses). This treatment is low energy; gravity is used and the only electricity required is

for pumps and mixing equipment. There is no external water treatment and no thermal equipment.

IRZ, the In Situ Reactive Zone technique, is a biological treatment based on anaerobic bio-precipitation under

reductive conditions, applicable to metals. Its main aim is the creation of a subsurface redox environment

(adding carbohydrates) where conditions are modified in order to enhance natural processes: migrating

contaminants are intercepted and permanently immobilized. Figure 11 shows a conceptual scheme for IRZ.

This treatment is expected to last 4 to 8 years, depending of the response of the milieu to the treatment.

Figure 11 – IRZ Conceptual Scheme

One of the major difficulties at this site was to demonstrate the feasibility of the chromium precipitation on

these residues, first at lab scale, then on site. Indeed, it was the first time in Europe that this remedial

technique was selected to treat high concentrations of metals (>4 g/L), in a very basic milieu (pH: 12 to 14),

where conditions were not favourable for bacterial growth. Demonstrating the technical feasibility of this in-

situ treatment helped to convince SOLVAY DRE, the local environmental authority, the public funding

organisation for land redevelopment, and the local municipalities of the merits of this approach. However, it

took almost 10 years from initial concept to implementation due to requirement of convincing stakeholders.

Additionally, these pilot steps allowed gathering and adapting of different technologies already used in other

technical fields (geotechnical issues for drilling operations, effluent recirculation as developed for anaerobic

bioreactors in municipal solid waste landfills, contaminated site remediation equipment, microbiological

analysis, etc.) Following this, the site was equipped with various injections systems in order to carry out full

size treatment: wells and trenches (short or long), to treat both the vadose zone and the saturated one.

After almost 18 months of treatment, the areas where molasses (carbohydrate source) were injected show

good responses in some monitoring wells; chromium concentrations have started to drop. Figure 12 shows

how IRZ can be viewed as a sustainable solution, taking into account environmental, societal and economic

issues. Overall, it is concluded that IRZ is more cost and time effective and has an “infinite lifetime” compared

to other solutions.

Figure 12 – Summary of Sustainable Elements of IRZ

3.2 Life cycle assessment of soils and groundwater remediation with zero valent iron nanoparticles: Results

from a pilot study in Barreiro, Portugal

Presenters: Helena Gomes & Celeste Jorge (CENSE); Co-Authors: Jorge Goncalves, Celia Dias-Ferreira,

Alexandra B. Ribeiro


A pilot test using zero valent iron nanoparticles (nZVI) was performed in a brownfield in Barreiro, southeast of

Lisbon, Portugal, by the consortium GEOPLANO/LNEC (private company and the National Laboratory of Civil

Engineering), between December 2010 and November 2011. The current work also involves two research

centres in Portugal: the New University of Lisbon and the Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra.

A life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed, based on the International Reference Life Cycle Data System

(ILCD) Handbook and using the software SimaPro to compare the environmental impacts of two different

remediation alternatives: excavation and landfill versus remediation using nanoparticles. To undertake the

LCA, the main challenge was to collect data to perform a comprehensive assessment. Different sources were

considered, from the nZVI manufacturer, the pilot study and other information available in the literature.

Another important issue was to determine the environmental impacts of the nZVI post remediation and to

assess ecological risks, health risks and social acceptability of this emergent remediation technology.

3.3 Mulch Biowalls as Low Cost Sustainable Remediation for Contaminated Soils and Groundwater

Presenter: Kevin A. Morris (ERM)


1. Introduction and overview

2. Remediation selection – process & considerations

3. Mulch biowalls/bioreactors

What are they?

Why Mulch?

4. Applications

5. Green and sustainable remediation

6. Case studies

7. Conclusion


Mulch biowalls are considered a viable, long-lasting, low environmental footprint alternative as an in situ

groundwater remediation technology for the treatment of chlorinated solvents, perchlorate and other

recalcitrant compounds that are amenable to anaerobic reduction processes, but have found limited

application in Europe. Wood mulch provides a sustainable carbon source to stimulate indigenous microbes to

generate reducing conditions and degrade contaminants to innocuous end products. Mulch can be generated

on site or obtained locally at a fraction of the cost of other substrates. This case study presents the results

from three mulch biowalls installed at two different industrial sites in the continental United States in 2003 to

address Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (CVOCs) and perchlorate contamination in soils and

groundwater.

Prior to selecting mulch biowalls, a desktop feasibility analysis was conducted that included other remediation

technologies such as; pump and treat, multi-phase extraction and thermal. One of the trenches was installed

as a 6 metre-deep infiltration trench connected to shallow collection trenches that divert storm water into a

retention pond. The infiltration trench was designed and constructed to treat perchlorate-impacted shallow

clayey soils at 1.5 to 4.5 m below ground surface (bgs) and shallow groundwater (2.4 to 5.4 m bgs), by

initiating an anaerobic treatment zone to stimulate the indigenous bacteria to degrade perchlorate in both soil

and water matrices. The laboratory data has shown a reduction of perchlorate in the shallow soils from

approximately 85 mg/kg to less than 1 mg/kg in the 10-year operation of the system, in groundwater by over

90% and a reduction in surface water of 99%.

Two trenches were installed at the other industrial site, 90m apart as barrier trenches to intercept CVOC and

perchlorate impacted groundwater prior to discharging to a small intermittent stream and immediately

downgradient of a CVOC and perchlorate source area. The dimensions of the trenches are approximately 60

m long by 3.6 to 4.5 m deep and backfilled with a 50/50 mix of local mulch and gravel. The upgradient trench

is connected to a groundwater recirculation system to increase the treatment zone length parallel to

groundwater flow. Laboratory data continues to indicate reductions of both CVOCs and perchlorate in

groundwater of 90 and 99%, respectively at the most downgradient monitoring well. Laboratory data collected

from the surface water of the intermittent stream indicates that the stream is benefiting from the reductions

in the residual contaminants in the shallow groundwater. Total CVOCs have been reduced from a high of 36

µg/L in May 2002 to non-detect for the last three quarterly sampling events while perchlorate has also

reduced from a high of 109 µg/L in November 2001 to non-detect.

In addition to the technical performance of the mulch walls described above, the technology in the context of

wider sustainability issues including experiences with respect to environmental, economic and social

indicators is considered. Construction and operational data collected during the course of this study has also

been used to estimate the environmental footprint of these technologies and the presentation of this data

forms a useful resource for the future evaluation of mulch walls as a remedial technique.

4. Session 4: Sustainable remediation using renewable energy

Session chair: Philippe Menoud – Dupont, Switzerland

4.1 Green Soil Remediation Projects at the Bilthoven and Amersfoort Sites

Presenter: Johan van Leeuwen (Stichting Bodemsanering NS, Netherlands)


1. Introduction

2. Bilthoven site - engineering, design and installation

3. Animation

4. Results

5. Amersfoort site - engineering & design

6. Conclusions


An SBNS initiative to implement sustainable /green elements into soil remediation activities resulted in two

green in-situ project sites: Bilthoven and Amersfoort. Bilthoven has been operational for one year, whilst

Amersfoort is under installation. Both sites feature renewable energy as the only energy source for

remediation works.

The Bilthoven project started in 2011 as part of a larger project building two tunnels under a railroad. At this

site, the saturated zone is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel). The groundwater component

target level is 600μg/l for mineral oil. This innovative project is executed in cooperation with consultancy

Tauw and contractor HMVT.

Initial engineering discussions lead to several feasible ideas including:

Solar soil heating to enhance bioremediation

Windturbine for compressed air production: the generated compressed air is injected into the soil with

microsparge filters to support biodegradation processes.

Solar power for operating small pumps and telemetric system. Electricity is generated by PV-cells

Wind power for soil vapor extraction. A chimney is erected and with the use of under pressure so soil

vapors are extracted

Initial results showed an increase in temperature by more than 4 degrees centigrade after 20 weeks. After 1

year, up to 100% reduction was seen in mineral oil contamination on the site.

The Amersfoort site was excavated in 2007 and treated via pump and treat between 2008 and 2012. At this

site, the saturated zone of the soil is contaminated with chlorinated solvents PCE and TCE. Groundwater

needs to be remediated to a maximum level of 0.5 and 6.0 µg/l respectively. Pump and treat was not

considered cost efficient however remediation of the site was still required.

“Green” pump and treat is being installed on this site where wind power will be used for pumping

contaminated groundwater to the surface, where it will be passed through a constructed wetland for bacterial

water treatment (See Figure 20). TCE and PCE will be reduced by bacterial attenuation in the constructed

wetland.

Figure 20 – “Green” Pump and Treat

4.2 Parys Mountain Metal Mine, Anglesey, Wales: Sustainability in Mine Water Remediation

Presenter: Rick Parkman (URS Infrastructure & Environment, United Kingdom); Co-Authors: R. Parkman, S.

Pearce, R. Knott & P. Goodman


The now abandoned Parys Mountain metal mine complex was mined since the Bronze age, 3500 years ago.

During the C18th/C19th the site was the largest exporter of copper globally. The last mining occurred in the

early part of the C20th, although site exploration continues today to identify additional mineral reserves that

are economically viable for recovery as global commodity prices continue to rise. The environmental legacy

extends from the residual un-mined metal sulphide minerals (i.e. pyrite, chalcopyrite and arsenopyrite) which

oxidise and hydrolyse (in reaction with oxygen and water) to release heavy metals and sulphuric acid. The

production of sulphuric acid with little buffering capacity from the host geology creates a very low pH

discharge (c. pH 1.5-2) with very high metalliferous loadings. Untreated mine water drains from the historic

workings at Dyffryn Adda Adit, and flows into the Afon Goch stream which flows through the town of Amlwch

before discharging into the Irish Sea, with significant environmental (and social) impacts throughout this flow

path. The discharge is being regulated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Since 2011, URS has

been working with Environment Agency Wales (EAW) to undertake feasibility studies, remediation optioneering

and stakeholder consultation looking towards practical implementation of a sustainable solution. The three

core principles of sustainability are the key drivers for treatment of the discharge:

Environmental: The site is the most significant single discharge of metals to UK coastal waters including both

hazardous and priority hazardous substances (i.e. cadmium). EAW is required to satisfy the conditions of the

WFD for the Afon Goch and Irish Sea

Social: Significant stakeholder pressures need to be accommodated in deriving an appropriate remedial

solution including: the local council, residents, impacted landowners, heritage/ academics groups (the mine

site is a Site of Special Scientific and Biological Interest)

Economic: Desire to drive down CAPEX and OPEX costs via innovation/ sustainable measures. The poor

quality of the mine water discharge meant that passive treatment (i.e. treatment wetlands) ‘green

remediation’ was not suitable, and thus active treatment (i.e. energy and resource intensive) was required.

URS sought to drive sustainability/ cost efficiency through our decision-making and technology selection

process:

Treatment Method Selection: Through URS’s UK/ global resource we researched the best available

techniques in terms of resource consumption (i.e. alkali reagents) and volume of waste sludge produced

requiring disposal. This process of internal collaboration informed the selected long-list of options and drove

sustainability issues throughout. Treatment techniques were considered which have never been used before

in the UK, diverting from traditionally employed and potentially less sustainable methods (e.g. alkali/lime

dosing followed by landfilling).

Stakeholder Engagement: The main project issues/ difficulties arose through diverging stakeholder interests

and opinions which were essential to acknowledge in order that each key stakeholder felt that their opinion

was valued and had been considered. A bespoke stakeholder engagement strategy was developed. The long-

list of remediation options was presented at a stakeholder engagement workshop, discussed at one-to-one

meetings and communicated through mail-shots to refine the treatment selection concepts. This included

discussions of: treatment location (nuisance and landtake), degree of remediation considered acceptable/

appropriate to different groups, integration with local history/ heritage/ academic groups to benefit the wider

community; before making a final recommendation to EAW as a short-list with URS’ single preferred option.

URS stakeholder engagement strategy was commended by EAW.

Energy/ Eco-efficiency: URS proposed the use of renewables such as geothermal energy/ wind generation to

power site equipment for the treatment plant to reduce OPEX and environmental footprint. The use of

geothermal energy from mine waters to power plant is a novel solution. The Parys Mountain Metal Mine

Project demonstrates excellence through all of core elements of sustainability through driving innovation,

environmental benefit, eco-efficiency and through considerable stakeholder consultation to refine the

remedial alternative selection. Our approach to this case study will be presented with reference to the NICOLE

Roadmap and other similar approaches for Sustainable Remediation (e.g. SURF UK).

5. Session 5: Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation projects – 2

Session chair: Hans-Peter Koschitzky – Univeristy of Stuttgart, Germany

5.1 Optimizing the Remediation Solution for a Complex Solvent Plume, Following the NICOLE Road Map

Presenter: Matthew Pearce (Worley-Parsons, UK); Co-Authors: Tracy Braithwaite, Mike Loxley, Helen

Matheson, & Clive Rivers.


1. Background

Conceptual model

2. Objective and options

3. Data, assumptions and parameters

Main data sources

Modelling parameters (assessment and financial)

Key assumptions

Capital expenditure breakdown

4. Valuations

Summary of externality valuation

Carbon dioxide

Traffic Impacts

Groundwater

Ecology of Fishing Ponds

Amenity of Fishing Ponds

5. Results

PV Breakdown

NPV

Marginal analysis

Sensitivity analysis

6. Conclusions


WorleyParsons carried out a Sustainability Analysis/EcoNomics™ Assessment with the aim of considering a

wide range of risk mitigation options and identifying the most sustainable approach for mitigating potential

risks from a historical solvent release.

The assessed site is located in South-East England and is a large industrial complex which has been present

since the mid-20th century and is likely to remain in its current use for at least the next 50 years. A

conceptual model for the site is shown in Figure 13.The primary source zone is a former solvent evaporation

pit, which has historically released contamination to groundwater. Remediation was previously carried out

within the source zone. Significant contaminant mass was removed from the sub-surface, however, residual

contamination continues to present a potentially significant risk to groundwater and surface water. A decision

had to be made on whether to restart the existing system, apply alternative approaches or whether a more

sustainable optimised remediation solution was available.

Figure 13 – Conceptual Site Model

The site is designated as Contaminated Land under Part 2A of the UK Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Therefore, there is a history of regulatory involvement with the Environment Agency in the site management.

WorleyParsons worked in accordance with the Nicole sustainability road map, involving numerous members of

the client’s team and regulators throughout the process in agreeing the objective, approach, boundaries and

assets of value to be considered in the assessment. During the framing workshop, stakeholders were brought

together to consider the objective and the scope of the assessment. In a collaborative and iterative process,

the objective of the assessment was determined to be to identify the most socially, environmentally and

financially acceptable longterm solution for the client that would also get support of the regulator.

A shortlist of potential management options, including large scale engineering/remediation solutions, small

scale pathway interruption, to business as usual. The social, environmental and financial benefits and dis-

benefits for each option were identified and quantified. Detailed research was carried out by economists to

develop social and environmental valuations for such assets as surface water, groundwater and sensitive

ecology.

In addition, economic studies of external impacts for such activities as HGV movements, and CO2 emissions

were reviewed to allow financial valuations to be applied. Combined with engineering data collection,

including high level remedial estimates, this information was input into the WorleyParsons EcoNomicsTM

modeling tool. The EcoNomicsTM as part of the sustainable remediation decision process is shown in Figure

14. The most sustainable option was identified as pathway interruption through backfilling of an ephemeral

pond and upgrading the storm drainage system which has been acting as a preferential pathway. This

approach was not the cheapest option available as part of this assessment, but provided a substantial saving

over costs for options which had previously been considered. It also provided a substantial reduction in waste,

emissions, HGV movements, over other options, whilst resulting in similar benefits to amenity and ecology in

the local country park.

Figure 14 – EcoNomicsTM as Part of Sustainable Remediation Decision Making

The results of the EcoNomicsTM Assessment were used as a communication tool to support the client in

presenting their recommended management option to the regulator, ensuring that proposed expenditure was

balanced by added value to both society and the environment. Regulator acceptance of this approach was

achieved easily in a single meeting, and the client intends to progress this approach.

5.2 Sustainability Assessment of the Redevelopment of Hexion with CEEQUAL

Presenter: Petra Brinkhoff (NCC Construction, Sweden); Co-authors: Kristine Ek & Malin Norin


1. Introduction

2. Construction companies and remediation

Sustainability & sustainable development

Sustainability in construction projects

Views on sustainable remediation

3. CEEQUAL

CEEQUAL and sustainability

4. Case Study

SCORE project

Hexion redevelopment

5. Assessment Results

6. Functionality of CEEQUAL


The civil engineering sector implies both positive and negative effects on people and the environment. In

respect to greenhouse gas emissions the civil engineering sector stands for a substantial contribution each

year. It is desirable, from the authorities as well as from the industry itself, that necessary infrastructure and

housing projects have as small negative effects as possible. There is an on-going discussion within the

industry about how these type of projects can be performed in a more environmentally friendly and

sustainable manner. The same discussion exists among remediation experts as remediation projects often

have the same basic goal as other land and construction projects; a measure is necessary. Hence a method

to evaluate impacts of civil engineering projects including remediation is desirable. CEEQUAL is a

sustainability assessment tool usable for these types of evaluations. How CEEQUAL functions is shown in

Figure 15. CEEQUAL has been used in 130 projects around the world and is one of the few available tools on

the market. CEEQUAL focuses on two of the three domains of sustainability: the environmental and the

societal (See Figure 16). CEEQUAL’s goal is to make sustainability issues visible and workable in projects at

an early stage and hence give opportunities to deliver a more sustainable project than if only the legal

requirements were strictly followed.

Figure 15 – Stages Involved in the CEEQUAL Process

Figure 16 – CEEQUAL and Sustainability

CEEQUAL has been used in a remediation project in Mölndal, near Gothenburg in Sweden (Hexion site).

Figures 17 and 18 show the site prior to demolition and the envisaged new use respectively. The assessment

was performed after the actual remediation had taken place i.e. ex post. The property, purchased by NCC, is a

former industrial site where activities, e.g. paint manufacturing, have left behind contaminants such as

phthalates, lead and aliphatic hydrocarbons. Future land-use plans include a residential area, hence

remediation was needed. The selected remediation alternatives for Hexion were excavation, sorting by sieving

and transportation of contaminated material to a nearby landfill. This was decided based on impacts and risks

to neighbours and the environment, feasibility studies and stakeholder communication.

Figure 17 – Hexion Prior to Demolition

Figure 18 – Envisaged New Development

The redevelopment of the property is an in-house project where NCC is responsible for the whole project

including the CEEQUAL assessment. External stakeholders were, among others: the County Administrative

Board of Västra Götaland, Mölndal municipality, other consultants and neighbours. The assessment result

shows that excavation in combination with sieving (to minimise transports to off-site disposal) were effective

from an economic and social point of view. The use of Multi-criteria Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment to

evaluate the sustainability of different remediation alternatives had a great influence on the final grade given

by CEEQUAL since it demonstrated that sustainability issues were illuminated before a decision on

remediation alternative was taken.

After completion, the functionality of CEEQUAL was evaluated. Key positives included that it provides a

comprehensive picture environmental impacts, enables more sustainable engineering by influencing project

design and allows clients to incorporate sustainability issues early in the construction process, prior to major

decision making.

5.3 Sustainability assessment of remedial options for a former oil terminal site

Presenter: Richard Bewley and Emily Ghedia (URS Infrastructure & Environment, UK)


1. Overview

2. Background and context of site

Objective of study

Conceptual site model and risk assessment

3. Assessment process

Initial collation of relevant site and project data

Workshop attended by the project team

Collation of additional data required to complete the assessment and development of options

Completion of the assessment

Reporting

4. Application of URS tool

5. Results and conclusions


A case study is presented of a sustainability assessment of remedial options at a former oil terminal site on

the island of Madeira from the perspective of the client. The decision making process that was used to

determine the boundaries of the assessment, the agreement of remedial options, the relevant assessment

criteria with associated weightings within the context of alternative end use scenarios, and the methodology

that was brought to bear, particularly in the context of the NICOLE Roadmap are all set out. The process

followed can be seen in Figure 19. The findings of the assessment are discussed, together with lessons

learned.

Figure 19 – URS Sustainable Remediation Strategy

The case study site operated for around 45 years before being demolished in 2007, when a redevelopment

plan was agreed with relevant stakeholders. Excavation and thermal treatment was favoured as the preferred

remedial approach. Due to the economic down turn, the redevelopment plan was suspended. The removal of

time constraints presented the opportunity for a review of alternative and potentially more sustainable

technologies.

The first task involved summarising business objectives, identifying relevant stakeholders and collating

relevant site data. Stakeholders included the client, the consultant, the local government, Madeira Regional

Environment Agency, surrounding neighbours and the purchaser.

This was followed by a workshop that established the boundaries of the assessment, considered stakeholder

views, agreed upon remedial options, relevant categories of indicators for economic, environmental and social

aspects, together with their associated weighting, identified end use scenarios and finally determined the

nature of the sustainability assessment itself. The assessment focused upon five ex situ approaches, these

being thermal desorption; land farming, enhanced bioremediation, soil washing, and excavation and disposal.

The relevant criteria for the assessment comprised (i) economic: direct economic costs and benefits, project

lifespan and flexibility; (ii) environmental: impacts on air, natural resources and waste; (iii) social: human

health and safety, neighbourhood and locality, compliance uncertainty and evidence. The justification and key

relevant indicators for each of these criteria will be discussed. Various scenarios based on a requirement

either to complete within 18 months or within 5 years were considered, based on redevelopment (i) for

unrestricted end use (most onerous remedial criteria) (ii) in line with the existing site master plan, or (iii)

according to an updated site master plan where the end use zoning of the site took some account of the

degree of contamination present (least onerous remedial criteria).

The unrestricted end use was rejected following a review, so that the assessment was taken forward on the

basis of four scenarios: these being two end uses, with and without the time constraints. An innovative in

house three tiered model was used to assess the sustainability of each of the five options based on the

assessment criteria and according to each of the four scenarios. A Tier 1 (semi–quantitative) assessment was

performed, which takes a holistic view of the various sustainability indicators and assigns a score to the

relevant assessment criteria that had been weighted accordingly at the workshop. The findings of the

assessment indicate that enhanced bioremediation was the most sustainable remedial approach

representing a change from the original remedial strategy. As the original time constraints were no longer

applicable, an alternative more sustainable solution was found. The assessment highlighted specific

indicators that should be addressed in detailed implementation planning for an enhanced bioremediation

approach (e.g. potential dust and odour issues). Uncertainties were identified.

6. Session 6: Development of sustainability frameworks -2

Session Chair: Elise Noel – Shell, France

6.1 Integrating Sustainable Development Principles into Shell’s Global Soil and Groundwater Management

Program

Presenter: Jonathan Smith (Shell Global Solutions, Netherlands/UK)


1. Introduction

2. Sustainable development and Shell

3. What does Shell mean by “sustainable remediation”?

4. How do sustainability considerations fit into Shell’s existing risk-based framework for soil and

groundwater?

5. Implementing sustainable remediation in Shell


Sustainable remediation comprises soil and groundwater risk-management actions that are protective of

human health and the wider environment and which are selected, designed and operated to maximise the

net-environmental, social and economic benefits. This paper will describe the implementation of a sustainable

remediation programme across Shell’s global soil and groundwater risk-management programme. Shell’s

Vision and Mission for sustainable remediation can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Shell’s Vision & Mission for Sustainable Remediation

Soil and groundwater assessment and remediation activities commonly adopt risk-based approaches to

ensure risks to human health, the environment and other relevant receptors are identified and appropriately

managed. Recently there has been growing international interest in extending risk-based approaches to take

account of sustainability principles. Sustainable remediation seeks to incorporate environmental, social and

economic criteria into remediation decision-making and to deliver better, more sustainable remedial

solutions. Ideally the net-benefits of undertaking remediation activities should be greater than the impacts (to

the environment, society and economy) of undertaking the works. Shell has operated a risk-based soil and

groundwater remediation programme for many years, but in 2012 implemented sustainable remediation

globally to supplement the existing risk-based programme.

In line with good international guidance, such as that issued by SURF, SuRF-UK, ITRC and others, a tiered and

holistic approach to sustainability appraisal will be adopted. Sustainability objectives will be initially

considered in setting business objectives for a remediation project. Once the details of site works start to be

considered Tier Zero, Best Management Practices will be applied to all phases of investigation, remediation,

monitoring and verification. At the remediation options appraisal stage, a more formal sustainability appraisal

will be undertaken to help inform the selection of the best remedial solution at a site.

A variety of sustainable remediation assessment methods are available for assessing the relative merits of

different remediation strategies and technologies, such as qualitative screening methods, multi-criteria

analysis (MCA), through to fully monetized Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). These methods can be applied in a

tiered assessment framework, such as that presented by the (SuRF-UK, 2010); a tiered approach is

demonstrated in Figure 6. Each sustainability appraisal method has a different level of analysis complexity,

data requirement, and associated resource and operator-skill to perform, whilst aiming to aid an assessor’s

decision on remediation selection.

Figure 6 – Example Tiered Sustainable Remediation Assessment Framework

Overall it is concluded that sustainable remediation is consistent with Shell’s corporate approach to

sustainable development and supplements, not replaces, Shell’s existing risk-based approach. Sustainability

appraisals should adopt a tiered approach and be kept simple. Shell believes sustainability can add value

across the global portfolio through improving their reputation, encouraging stakeholder acceptance of risk-

based solutions and achieving better remediation.

Reference

SuRF-UK, 2010. A framework for assessing the sustainability of soil and groundwater remediation. CL:AIRE,

London.

6.2 Use of SURF-UK Indicators to Evaluate Remediation Alternatives in Northern Ireland

Presenter: James Day, Paul Favara (CH2M, Germany) & David Ellis (Du Pont, USA)


1. Introduction

Overview of step approach

2. Site Overview

3. Overview of SuRF-UK

4. Step 1 – Study goal and scope

5. Step 6 – Assess impacts

6. Step 7 – Sensitivity and uncertainty

7. Step 8 – Interpretation

8. Step 9 – SuRF UK assessment

SuRF overview comparison

Value comparison

9. Conclusions


DuPont is evaluating treatment alternatives for groundwater remediation at their Maydown site in Northern

Ireland. This site is contaminated with 1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) disposed of within warehouse pits. The EDC

in the groundwater was migrating to the surface water. Interim measure goals were:

Reduce contaminant mass flux to River Faughan

Provide demonstrable improvement of EDC concentrations in river within 12-18 months

SuRF-UK has developed a set of 15 categories of indicators split equally between social, environmental and

economic factors. The categories were developed to help practitioners check that their sustainability

indicators are suitably holistic, identify gaps in indicator coverage, provide an authoritative listing that

stakeholders could benchmark against, provide a hierarchical framework to facilitate assessments, and

provide an approach that is “failsafe” in the range of sustainable issues addressed.

DuPont applied these indicators to the Maydown project in conjunction with the CH2M HILL project team

using internal Corporate Remediation Group (CRG) technologists. DuPont/CH2M HILL used the SuRF-UK

indicator set as a basis for remedial alternative selection. Life-cycle analysis was used in accordance with

SuRF’s 9 step process for LCA remediation projects. LCA was used for remedial alternatives, in order to

support the interim measure goals. LCA can be used to inform decision makers about the potential

environmental impacts of alternatives. LCA results were mapped to applicable SuRF UK indicators to provide

DuPnt with information about the interface of LCA with the SuRF UK indicator set. Commercial and public

domain LCA library used as primary source of life cycle inventory data.

The remedial technologies that were evaluated for implementation at the site are: groundwater pump and

treat (P&T), various configurations of groundwater air sparging and monitored natural attenuation. These

technologies were evaluated for implementation as a barrier technology to control off site migration of site

contaminants.

The impacts of remediation were assessed and normalised with world population as a screen to determine

minor vs. major contributors. Separate analysis occurred of higher uncertainty impact categories, such as

toxicity, from other impact categories. Identification of categories that are the main contributors to impacts

was also undertaken. Areas of uncertainty were identified for both LCA in general and those specific to this

project.

The conclusions of the assessment determined the remedial option of air sparging with horizontal wells to be

the most sustainable alternative, due to least disruption of riverbank ecology. For this project, one of the most

potentially challenging issues to address is the competing attributes of the SuRF UK indicators ( i.e. low

impact remedies like MNA have a smaller environmental footprint compared to active remedies that have

more environmental impacts).

6.3 Optimizing Remediation Sustainability Using a Two-step Stochastic Method

Presenter: Gary Wealthall (Geosyntec Consultants, Canada)


1. Introduction

2. Evaluating sustainability overview

SuRF 9 steps

Life cycle assessments

SimaPro advantages

3. Implementing method

Case study – coal tar site

Remedies evaluated

Building LCAs

Probability

Rankings

SimaPro – analyze uncertainties

Optimize

Iterative improvements

4. Conclusions


Sustainability is a fundamental condition for the long term success of any activity, company, or society.

Recently many corporations, organizations, and governmental agencies have been putting a greater emphasis

on evaluating and improving sustainability of projects and products. Using a coal tar contaminated site case

study, this presentation illustrates a two step-procedure to i) optimize sustainability and ii) establish a data

optimization framework.

The two step procedure to optimize sustainability is simple, but necessary. To utilise this procedure we first

generate a list of remedies that are relevant to the site contamination, and then evaluate the sustainability of

the individual remedies. This is done using Life Cycle Assessments as part of SuRF’s “9 steps” (shown in

Table 2, below). After selecting the most sustainable remedy, a contribution analysis where we identify

remedy components that are the greatest contributors to negative sustainability impacts is performed. The

less sustainable components are then substituted for more sustainable, but still effective, alternatives.

Table 2 – SuRF-UK’s “9 steps”

Monte Carlo analysis is employed to generate easy-to-interpret data that adds an additional level of

sophistication in determining which remedies are most sustainable. The use of stochastic methods provides a

powerful tool to analyse the sensitivity of individual sustainability calculations to variability that is inherent in

remedy implementation, e.g. the possible range of days to complete a project. Using user defined uncertainty

data, the Monte Carlo method creates a probability distribution of sustainability outcomes (e.g. tons CO2

released). The distributions from each remedy are evaluated on a single graphical plot. The resulting curves

are described by three broad categories, which indicate complete overlap, partial overlap, or no overlap.

Regardless of extent of overlap, the data stochastic distributions are much easier to interpret compared to

other methods of analysing sensitivity such as, examining average-case, best-case, and worst-case outcomes.

In the case study (a coal tar site) three remediation technologies were evaluated: (1) an innovative method of

combusting the contamination in-situ (Self-Sustaining Treatment for Active Remediation, STAR); (2) Low-

Temperature Thermal Desorption; LTTD; and (3) Excavation and off-site disposal. Geosyntec’s evaluation

procedure for selected remedies is shown in Figure 7, below. Uncertainties were evaluated using SimaPro, a

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool that uses the Monte Carlo method and a powerful contribution analysis

function. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8. Step one concluded that the first option (STAR)

was most sustainable. Step two showed that the initial choice of barrier wall (a sheet pile wall) was a major

contributor to negative sustainability impacts. The step two comparison of four different barrier wall types

(Soil-Bentonite, Cement-Bentonite, Sheet Pile, and Jet Grout) indicated that a soil-bentonite wall would further

optimize remediation sustainability.

Figure 7 – Sustainable remedy evaluation procedure

Figure 8 – SimaPro Analysis of Remediation Techniques

6.4 Syndial Approach to Sustainable Remediation – an Italian Case Study

Presenter: Emanuela Gallo, Giorgio Bianchi and Luciano Zaninetta (Syndial, Italy)


1. Introduction

Syndial

Eni’s commitment

Motivations

2. Legal standpoint

Case studies

3. Overview of programme

Case study

4. Application of SAF

5. Conclusions


Syndial is part of the Eni group and has the mission of managing environmental activities required to restore

industrial sites. Eni is commited to sustainability and believes being sustainable means creating value for

stakeholders and using resources so as to avoid compromising the needs of future generations.

Sustainability is not well recognised in Italian legislation, the few legislative indications that exist towards

sustainability are focussed on waste. Public authorities focus on remediation activities that can be considered

unsustainable. For example, 50% of risk reduction measures for soils involve excavation and off-site disposal.

However, a new culture of sustainability is developing via court decisions of agreements settled with local

authorities. Detailed herein are three cases studies in which legal entities helped in sustainable development

of clean-up activities.

Case 1 - Priolo, Sicily, is a multi-company site of around 43 km2 including 15km of coast. Since the 1950s, oil

refineries, petrochemical and cement plants have been operating in the area. The harbour is also industrially

important with high volumes of traffic annually. During the remediation of the site the Ministry of the

Environment undertook an investigation to determine contamination of the adjacent sea waters. Main

contaminants discovered were mercury and petroleum hydrocarbons. Contaminant sediments were ordered

to be dredged.

Around 13 million m3 of sediments were required to be removed. Difficulties involved included the possibility

of ships causing sediment re-suspension. This justified the closure of the harbour. Services provided to the

local community by the harbour were therefore lost. No environmental, ecological or human-health risk

assessment, nor a cost-benefit analysis had been conducted with regard to the above-mentioned closure. The

Court of Justice (10th March 2010) determined the following principles with regards to the case:

Remediation measures must be chosen in accordance with a sound procedure and must meet

substantive beneficial criteria in order to balance land use, services and benefit restrictions.

Remedial measures that are unsustainable from a technical, environmental and financial point of view

must be excluded.

Case 2 - five mining sites in Tuscany. Mining sites have unusual characteristics from both a legal and

technical standpoint. They may have specific characteristics that make them of concern from an

environmental standpoint e.g. concentration levels of substances above legal limits. Such sites require a

balance between remedial activities and environmental impacts of remediation (i.e. closure of mine may

involve an environmental impact) No laws exist in Italy to co-ordinate the aforementioned activities.

During the closure and remediation of the mines on the sites, high quantities of highly contaminated

groundwater being discharged needed to be managed. Local Authorities requested the construction of a

water treatment plant at each mine gallery (a total of 7/8 plants) to reduce contamination to below legal

limits. Eni made a deal with the Local Authorities to meet the need to close mines, alongside the requirement

to prevent the discharge of contaminated waters to rivers and minimise costs and inefficiencies for the

company. A suitable solution was eventually determined: building one unique water treatment facility to

provide cleaned water for agricultural use.

Case 3 – ISAF – Gela Phosphogypsum Landfill (Shown in Figure 9). This site has been used as a landfill from

1992 to present. The site is planned to be remediated into a photovoltaic site to allow for renewable energy

production providing local economic development with a low carbon footprint. Development of the site would

include isolation of the phosphogypsum deposit and in site landfill leachate treatment.

Figure 9 – Gela Phosphogypsum Landfill

These case studies provided Syndial with the instruments to develop sustainable remediation measures. The

Porto Torres site in Sardinia is given as the first relevant example of Green Economy, where clean-up activities

represent the first step of the project. The aim was to transform this 1200 ha chemical site using bioplastic

technologies. Local products (e.g. biomass) were used as raw materials for a bio refinery to develop a

photovoltaic power station. This program started in 2011, using a sustainable restoration programme. A

Sustainable Assessment Framework was applied to soil clean-up activities. As part of this, a feasibility study

was undertaken (see Figure 10 for remediation techniques assessed) including a technology screening for

different remediation scenarios.

7. Session 7: Sustainable remediation using phyto- techniques

Session Chair: Hans Groot – Deltares, The Netherlands

7.1 Engineered Phytoremediation at an Industrial Site Contaminated with Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Presenter: Frank Volkering (Tauw), Edward Gatliff (Applies Natural Sciences, Inc.) and Wim Staal (Dow Benelux

bv)


1. Site background

Conceptual site model

Contamination

2. Remediation assessment

Technology selection

3. Sustainability

Assessment

CO2 footprint

4. Phytoremediation of MAH

5. Phytoremediation pilot setup

6. Pilot results

Tree health

Effect on hydrology

Effect on groundwater

Effect on soil

Contaminant evaporation

7. Conclusions


At a former styrene production facility at a chemical production plant in The Netherlands, the shallow

subsurface is contaminated with monoaromatic hydrocarbons (MAH). Although the contamination is not

causing unacceptable risks and immediate remediation is not required by the authorities, the owner of the

site preferred that the site to be cleaned up for future redevelopment. Based on the aerobic biodegradability

of MAH, aerobic bioremediation was considered the best remediation technology. A biosparging pilot at the

site showed that the soil was less permeable than anticipated, resulting in a low radius of influence and

insufficient oxygen delivery.

In search of an alternative approach, several remediation technologies were assessed in terms of feasibility

and sustainability. Given the available time for remediation and the clients wish for a sustainable approach,

engineered phytoremediation was selected. To determine the site-specific feasibility of phytoremediation, a

pilot application is currently being performed at an area of 40 x 60 m. The baseline study showed variable

contaminant levels with two zones highly contaminated with benzene, ethylbenzene, and styrene. MAH

concentrations in soil ranged from < dl to 11,500 mg/kg. MAH concentrations in the shallow groundwater

ranged from 55 to 222,000 µg/l.

In 2010, 33 willow trees of a local variety (Salix alba) were planted in the pilot area. To establish the

protection requirements of the trees against the contamination, three different planting configurations have

been used (see Figure 21):

- typically planted trees

- the engineered phytoremediation TreeWell® system, in which trees are planted in a deep, large-diameter

optimized planting hole, the wall of which is lined with an impermeable LDPE material

- the modified TreeWell® system, which is similar to a normal TreeWell® system, but without the liner

Figure 21 – Planting Configurations

After two years of closely monitoring the hydrology and the soil and groundwater quality in the pilot area, the

following conclusion can be drawn:

The trees have a measurable effect on the local hydrology. During the growing season, the groundwater

table is slightly drawn down by the trees.

The trees grow well in moderately contaminated zones (< 1,000 mg/kg MAH), resulting in a significant

decrease of the contaminant concentrations in both soil and groundwater

In the zone where the presence of a LNAPL is suspected, the trees are not growing well. Here, little or no

influence on the contaminant concentrations is measured – a common observation in the presence of a

NAPL source.

Limited contaminant evapotranspiration is observed.

Based on the positive results of the pilot application, the current plan is to extend the phytoremediation to the

complete former production facility with modified TreeWell® units. In LNAPL zones, trees will be protected with

a shallow liner and combination with a low-intensity LNAPL-recovery system is foreseen.

7.2 Overcoming Barriers to Effective Phyto-management of Contaminated Land - the GREENLAND Project

Presenter: Nele Witters (University of Hasselt); Co-Authors: Paul Bardos, Markus Puschenreiter, Michel Mench,

Valerie Bert, Jurate Kumpiene, Petra Kidd and Andrew Cundy


Gentle Remediation Options (GRO) are risk management techniques that result in no gross reduction in soil

functionality / soil ecosystem services (or a net gain). Hence they have particular usefulness for biologically

productive soils, and show considerable potential as more sustainable or “green” remediation or site

management tools. GROs encompass a number of technologies which include the use of plant (phyto-),

microbial or fungal (myco-) based methods, with or without chemical additives, for reducing contaminant

transfer to local receptors by in situ stabilization of contaminants (using biological or chemical processes), or

extraction of contaminants. The application of GROs as practical site solutions however is still in its relative

infancy, despite a substantial research investment. The barriers to wider adoption, particularly in Europe,

arise from:

(a) the fact that many remediation projects are targeted on meeting regulatory demand for critical situations

and/or to stimulate the re-use of brownfield land (GRO are frequently perceived as slow and more suited to

large area problems); and

(b) market perceptions of uncertainties in achieving effective risk management in the long term.

This paper reports on the on-going EU FP7 KBBE (Knowledge Based Bio-Economy) GREENLAND project

(Gentle remediation of trace element contaminated land), initiated in 2011 to overcome these barriers and

bring GRO closer to practical application within Europe. The project draws together 17 partner organisations

to examine:

1. The practical effectiveness of GRO (focusing on phyto-technologies) in several long-term site trials;

2. Use and valorization of biomass produced during the phytoremediation process;

3. Derivation of methods for soil analysis to better assess the progress and efficiency of phytoremediation;

4. Use of biotechnological tools to increase phytoremediation efficiency;

5. Development of a decision support tool for stakeholders and publication of best-practice guidance for

practical site application.

GRO may provide important, and more sustainable, alternatives to conventional “hard” remediation methods

due to their relatively low capital costs and the inherently aesthetic nature of planted or “green” sites. In

addition, “greening” of contaminated land may have benefits far beyond risk management in terms of

resource generation (biomass), educational and amenity value, CO2 sequestration, resource deployment

(compost outlets) and ecosystem services.

8. Concluding Remarks

1. The basic knowledge needed for effective implementation of sustainable remediation is already

available, i.e. definitions, indicator sets, flowcharts, best management practices and checklists.

The workshop has shown that several practical tools are available for use, (e.g. the NICOLE Roadmap

and the SuRF-UK Briefcase, Tier 1 of the Best Management Practices) as well as for more experienced

users (e.g. Tier 2 and 3 of the SuRF-UK BMPs). A wide range of tools are available, from very complex

assessment systems requiring the answering of 200 comprehensive questions (CEEQUAL) or

alignment with a lot of stakeholders (URS Sustainable Analysis/EcoNomicsTM) to very simple ones.

Some tools have been, or will soon be, translated into software. A tiered approach to sustainability

assessment will likely be both most efficient in use of resources and more complete. At an entry level

simple approaches will either yield an adequate basis for decision making, or highlight where more

intensive work needs to be carried out. Hence, using simple tools first allows a project to quickly

assess which options are realistic, whether a decision is easily possible and if not what needs to be

done next. Based on the SuRF-UK Framework the Shell expectation is for 90% of project decisions to

progress no further than SuRF-UK Tier 1 (qualitative methods), around 9% Tier 2 (semi-quantitative

methods) and less than 1% reaching Tier 3 (quantitative methods).

2. The development of further knowledge should be a balanced process, in which data from international

scientific projects should be combined with empirical evidence from projects in which sustainable

remediation is implemented.

There is a certain drive here, as e.g. in Italy recent court decisions show that remediation solutions

should include sustainable considerations by including social and economic factors in the decision

making process. Several international research projects like HOMBRE, TIMBRE and Greenland are

engaged with sustainable remediation (and regeneration).

3. Authorities and other concerned parties find it a challenge to link sustainable remediation to the

spatial planning process.

It is clear that sustainable remediation considerations are useful to apply within other decision making

processes. It was suggested that NICOLE could help here. One way of doing this could be the

development of a guide to available tools.

4. Sustainable remediation drives innovation in contaminated land management.

Sustainable remediation already supplements existing risk based remediation decision making

approaches. It does not substitute for them.

Portuguese policy on soil contamination

Presented by Paula Meireles, Ministry for Agriculture, Sea, Environment and Spatial Planning

(MAMAOT)/Office of Planning and Policy (GGP).

In her keynote address Ms. Meireles expressed the intention of the Portuguese government to publish a policy

on soil contamination by the end of 2013. For the development of this policy legislation from five European

countries, two US states (Texas and Washington) and the Canadian province of Ontario were reviewed. In the

draft version presented, the Portuguese screening values are based on the Ontario standards, because those

are the most conservative. Until Portugal has developed its own standards one can apply either the Ontario

screening values, or, provided this is well motivated, other values

Guidances and regulations continue to be developed for Hg. In addition, it is noted that there is an

international Conference on Mercury as a global Pollutant scheduled for 29 July - 2 August, 2013 in Scotland

(www.mercury2013.com) and that the UNEP has targeted 2013 as a year in which to reach legally binding

agreements internationally to address the mercury issue.

Data Acquisition for a Good Conceptual Site Model, Carcassonne, France

10-11 May 2006

Making Managmenet of Contaminated Land an Obsolete Business –

Challenges for the future (NICOLE 1996-2006 Ten Year Anniversary

Workshop), Leuven, Belgium

5-6 October 2006

Redevelopment of sites – the industrial perspective. Akersloot, the

Netherlands

14-15 June 2007

Using baselines in liability management: what do upcoming Directives

require from us? Brussels, Belgium

15-16 November 2007

Sustainable Remediation, London, UK

3 March 2008

Environmental Decision Support Systems, Madrid, Spain

9-10 October 2008

Basics and Principles of Environmental Law, Brussels, Belgium

31 March 2009

Sustainable Remediation - A Solution to an Unsustainable Past? Leuven,

Belgium

3-5 June 2009

From Site Closure to Disengagement, Douai, France

18-20 November 2009

Contaminated land management: opportunities, challenges and financial

consequences of evolving legislation in Europe, Triest, Italy

5-7 July 2010

Emerging contaminants and solutions for large quantities of oil

contaminated soil (Technical meeting), Brussels, Belgium

4 November 2010

Operating Windows for site characterisation, Copenhagen, Denmark

25-27 May 2011

Rotterdam Revisited; a renewed look at soil and groundwater management,

Rotterdam, the Netherlands

16-18 November 2011

Water in Contaminated Land Management, the challenge of preservation of

our water resource, Baden-Baden, Germany and Lauterbourg, France

13-15 June, 2012

For a complete overview of all networks meetings that have been held from the start of NICOLE up to now see

www.nicole.org.

http://www.mercury2013.com/


Appendix 1 Program

Implementation of Sustainability in Management of Contaminated

Land – in particular using emerging 'green' technologies

NICOLE Network meeting & workshop

Lisbon, 12-14 June 2013

Introduction NICOLE has described a sustainable remediation project as one that represents the best solution when

considering environmental, social as well as economic factors – as agreed by the stakeholders. This

debate has been the subject of several meetings and special sessions, e.g. during the NICOLE workshop

held in Leuven, Belgium, 4-5 June 2009, 'Sustainable remediation – A solution to an unsustainable

past?'. NICOLE would like to facilitate a shift in this discussion towards practical implementation.

Moreover, NICOLE wants to promote a common understanding for Sustainability in Management of

Contaminated Land, which includes popular terms like 'Green Remediation' and 'Green Technologies'.

The NICOLE Spring Workshop 2013 aims at showing examples and experiences on how contaminated

sites can be remediated eco-efficiently, leaving a smaller environmental footprint, and how their reuse

can contribute to a more sustainable development. This encompasses both approaches to deployment

and decision-making, and technologies. In addition, intrinsically eco-friendly, eco-efficient techniques

have been developed, such as phytotechnologies, use of biochars and other recyclates, mulch barriers,

helophyte filters, etc. However, examples of their practical deployment are limited. NICOLE seeks to

facilitate adoption of more sustainable strategies and techniques, and to understand whether there are

barriers to this, and if so, how they could be overcome.

0

Wednesday 12 June 2013 MEETING OF NICOLE WORKING GROUPS AND SUBGROUPS

Venue: CS Vintage Lisbon – Rua Rodrigo da Fonseca 2, 1250-191 Lisbon, Portugal

09.00-10.30 Parallel meetings of NICOLE Working Groups:

- Sustainable Remediation

- Mercury

10.30-11.00 COFFEE BREAK

11.00-12.30 Meeting Regulatory Working Group

12.30-13.30 LUNCH

13.30-17.30 ISG Meeting

14.30-17.30 SPG Meeting

17.30-18.30 Welcome drinks

18.30-19.00 General Assembly meeting

19.00-21.30 ISG Information Exchange meeting

1

Thursday 13 June 2013 CONFERENCE DAY 1

Venue: School of Economics and Management Lisbon (ISEG) - Rua do Quelhas 6, 1200-781

Lisbon

08.30-09.00 Registration

OPENING SESSION

Chair: Lucia Buvé (Umicore – Belgium)

09.00-09.15 Opening and welcome

- by Lucia Buvé, session chair (Umicore – Belgium)

09.15-09.35 Keynote speech

- by Paula Meireles (Ministry for Agriculture, Sea, Environment and Spatial

Planning (MAMAOT) / Office of Planning and Policy (GGP) – Portugal)

09.35-09.50 Update on NICOLE

- Steering Group – by Lucia Buvé, Steering Group chair

- Working Groups – by Working Group Leaders

09.50-10.30 Framing the workshop topic

- by Arthur de Groof (Grontmij – Netherlands & NICOLE OC Chair)

10.30-11.00 COFFEE BREAK in poster area

SESSION 2:

Development of sustainability frameworks - 1

Chair: Peter Wouter (ENVIRON – Spain)

11.00-11.30 The Common Forum-NICOLE joint position statement on sustainable

remediation

- by Dominique Darmendrail (BRGM – France & Common Forum Secretary) and

Lucy Wiltshire (Honeywell – United Kingdom & NICOLE member)

11.30-12.00 Development of practical guidance to promote sustainability considerations in

land contamination management in the UK

- by Brian Bone (SuRF-UK Steering Group – United Kingdom)

12.00-12.30 Flanders implements green and sustainable remediation by a threefold

approach

- by Griet van Gestel (OVAM – Flanders, Belgium)

2

12.30-13.00 Questions and discussion

13.00-14.00 LUNCH

3

Thursday 13 June 2013 (continued) CONFERENCE DAY 1


Lisbon

SESSION 3:

Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation projects - 1

Chair: Oliver Phipps (ERM – United Kingdom)

14.00-14.30 Field development of 'in situ reactive zone' (IRZ) for the sustainable treatment

of Chromite ore processing residues (Copr) Heap

- by Thomas Wohlhuter (Arcadis – France)

14.30-15.00 Life cycle assessment of soils and groundwater remediation with zero valent

iron nanoparticles: Results from a pilot study in Barreiro, Portugal

- by Helena Gomes and Celeste Jorge (CENSE (Center for Environmental and

Sustainability Research) – Portugal)

15.00-15.30 Mulch biowalls as low cost sustainable remediation for contaminated soils and

groundwater

- by Kevin Morris (ERM – United States of America)



SESSION 4:

Sustainable remediation using renewable energy

Chair: Philippe Menoud (Dupont – Switzerland)

16.30-17.00 Green soil remediation projects at the Bilthoven and Amersfoort sites

- by Johan van Leeuwen (Stichting Bodemsanering NS – Netherlands)

17.00-17.30 Parys Mountain metal mine, Anglesey, Wales: Sustainability in mine water

remediation

- by Rick Parkman (URS Infrastructure & Environment – United Kingdom)


4

19.30-22.00 NICOLE CONFERENCE DINNER

Venue: Sr. Vinho Restaurant – Rua do Meio a Lapa 18, 1200-723 Lisbon

6

Friday 14 June 2013

CONFERENCE DAY 2


Lisbon

SESSION 5:

Implementing sustainability approaches in remediation projects - 2

Chair: Hans-Peter Koschitzky (University of Stuttgart – Germany)

09.00-09.30 Optimizing the remediation solution for a complex solvent plume, following

the NICOLE road map

- by Tracy Braithwaite (AWE – United Kingdom) and Matthew Pearce

(WorleyParsons – United Kingdom)

09.30-10.00 Sustainability assessment of the redevelopment of Hexion with CEEQUAL

- by Petra Brinkhoff (NCC Construction – Sweden)

10.00-10.30 Sustainability assessment of remedial options for a former oil terminal site

- by Richard Bewley and Emily Ghedia (URS Infrastructure & Environment –

United Kingdom)



SESSION 6:

Development of sustainability frameworks - 2

Chair: Elise Noël (Shell – France)

11.30-12.00 Integrating sustainable development principles into Shell’s global soil and

groundwater management program

- by Jonathan Smith (Shell Global Solutions – Netherlands/United Kingdom)

12.00-12.30 Use of SURF-UK indicators to evaluate remediation alternatives in Northern

Ireland

- by James Day and David Ellis (CH2M – Germany / DuPont – United States of

America)

12.30-13.30 LUNCH

7

13.30-14.00 Optimizing remediation sustainability using a two-step stochastic method

- by Gary Wealthall (Geosyntec Consultants – Canada)

14.00-14.30 Syndial approach to sustainable remediation - an Italian case study

- by Emanuela Gallo, Giorgio Bianchi and Luciano Zaninetta (Syndial – Italy)


8

Friday 14 June 2013 (continued)

CONFERENCE DAY 2


Lisbon

SESSION 7:

Sustainable remediation using phyto-techniques

Chair: Hans Groot (Deltares – Netherlands)

15.00-15.30 Engineered phytoremediation at an industrial site contaminated with aromatic

hydrocarbons

- by Frank Volkering (Tauw – Netherlands / Dow – Netherlands)

15.30-16.00 Overcoming barriers to effective phyto-management of contaminated land –

the GREENLAND project

- by Nele Witters (University of Hasselt – Belgium)

16.00-16.15 Questions, discussion and wrap up

16.15 CLOSING

- by Prof. João Luis Correia Duque (President ISEG)

10

NICOLE Organization Committee

Arthur de Groof (Grontmij – Netherlands)(chair)

Hans-Peter Koschitzky (VEGAS / University of Stuttgart – Germany)(vice-chair)

Paul Bardos (R3 Environmental – United Kingdom)

Ettore Ferrari (ENI – Italy)

Hans Groot (Deltares – Netherlands)

Philippe Menoud (DuPont – Switzerland)

Allessandro Nardella (ENI – Italy)

Elise Noël (Shell – France)

Matthew Pearce (WorleyParsons – United Kingdom)

Alan Thomas (ERM – United Kingdom)

Peter Wouters (ENVIRON – Spain)

NICOLE Secretariat

For further information on NICOLE membership, workshop program, registration & fees, or any other

practical issue with regards to the conference, please contact:

Nan Su (Dutch Sino Business Promotions)

P.O. Box 28249 – 3003 KE Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Phone: +31 (0)6 41374680

E-mail: [email protected]

Venues

NICOLE Network meeting CS Vintage Lisbon

Rua Rodrigo da Fonseca 2 – 1250-191 Lisbon, Portugal

Conference & workshops School of Economics and Management Lisbon (ISEG)

Rua do Quelhas 6 – 1200-781 Lisbon, Portugal

Conference dinner Sr. Vinho Restaurant

Rua do Meio a Lapa 18 – 1200-723 Lisbon, Portugal

Registration

Please complete the conference registration form, available online through NICOLE.org and/or the

NICOLE secretariat. Deadline for registration: 5 June 2013.

Fees

Participation in the NICOLE Spring 2013 Workshop is free of charge for NICOLE members, Common

Forum members, and conference speakers. Information on admission fees for other participants can be

obtained through the NICOLE secretariat.

mailto:[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]?subject=Conference%20registration%20form%20-%20Lisbon%202013

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Lisbon%202013%20fees%20non-NICOLE/CF%20members

11

Participation in the Conference Dinner on 13 June 2013 at the Sr. Vinho Restaurant will be settled

individually at € 50 per cover.